skip to main content
10.1145/2833258.2833285acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoictConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Stateflow to Tabular Expressions

Published: 03 December 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Stateflow is a visual tool that is used extensively in industry for designing the reactive behaviour of embedded systems. Stateflow relies on techniques like simulation to aid the user in finding flaws in the model. However, simulation is inadequate as a means of detecting inconsistencies and incompleteness in the model. Tabular Expressions (function tables) have been used successfully in software development for more than thirty years. Tabular expressions are also visual representations of functions, but include the important properties of completeness and disjointness. In other words, a tabular expression is well-formed only when the input domain is covered completely (completeness), and when there is no ambiguity in the behaviour described by the tabular expression (disjointness). The goal of our work is to use the completeness and disjointness properties of well-formed tabular expressions to aid us in establishing those properties in Stateflow models. From the Stateflow models, we generate a new kind of tabular expression that includes extended output options. We use the informal Stateflow semantics from MathWorks documentation as the basis for generating our tabular expressions. The generated tabular expressions are then used to guarantee completeness and disjointness. We provide a transformation algorithm that we plan to implement in a tool to automatically generate tabular expressions from Stateflow models.

References

[1]
http://autsys.aalto.fi/en/fieldrobot2007.
[2]
G. Archinoff, R. Hohendorf, A. Wassyng, B. Quigley, and M. Borsch. Verification of the shutdown system software at the darlington nuclear generating station. In International Conference on Control and Instrumentation in Nuclear Installations, Glasgow, UK, 1990.
[3]
C. Banphawatthanarak, B. Krogh, and K. Butts. Symbolic verification of executable control specifications. In Computer Aided Control System Design, 1999. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 581--586, 1999.
[4]
H. N. Cantrell, J. King, and F. E. H. King. Logic-structure tables. Commun. ACM, 4(6):272--275, June 1961.
[5]
A. Cavalcanti. Stateflow diagrams in circus. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 240:23--41, July 2009.
[6]
P. Clements. Function Specifications for the A-7E Function Driver Module. NRL Memorandum Report. Defense Technical Information Center, 1981.
[7]
D. Craigen, S. Gerhart, and T. Ralston. Case study: Darlington nuclear generating station. IEEE Softw., 11(1):30--39, 28, Jan. 1994.
[8]
C. Eles and M. Lawford. A tabular expression toolbox for matlab/simulink. In NASA Formal Methods, pages 494--499, 2011.
[9]
G. Hamon and J. Rushby. An operational semantics for stateflow. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf., 9(5):447--456, Oct. 2007.
[10]
D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program., 8(3):231--274, June 1987.
[11]
C. Heitmeyer, J. Kirby, B. Labaw, and R. Bharadwaj. Scr: A toolset for specifying and analyzing software requirements. In A. Hu and M. Vardi, editors, Computer Aided Verification, volume 1427 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 526--531. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998.
[12]
K. Heninger. Specifying software requirements for complex systems: New techniques and their application. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, SE-6(1):2--13, 1980.
[13]
K. Heninger, J. Kallander, and S. J. E. Parnas D. L. Software Requirements for the A-7E Aircraft. NRL Memorandum Report 3876. Naval Research Laboratory, 1978.
[14]
R. Janicki. Towards a formal semantics of parnas tables. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '95, pages 231--240, New York, NY, USA, 1995. ACM.
[15]
R. Janicki, D. Parnas, and J. Zucker. Tabular representations in relational documents. In C. Brink, W. Kahl, and G. Schmidt, editors, Relational Methods in Computer Science, Advances in Computing Sciences, pages 184--196. Springer Vienna, 1997.
[16]
R. Janicki and A. Wassyng. Tabular expressions and their relational semantics. Fundam. Inform., 67(4):343--370, 2005.
[17]
Y. Jin and D. L. Parnas. Defining the meaning of tabular mathematical expressions. Science of Computer Programming, 75(11):980--1000, 2010. Special Section on the Programming Languages Track at the 23rd {ACM} Symposium on Applied Computing 08.
[18]
Mathworks. Stateflow and Stateflow Coder, User's Guide, 2003.
[19]
Mathworks. Simulink Design Verifier, User's Guide, 2011.
[20]
M. Montalbano. Tables, flow charts, and program logic. IBM Syst. J., 1(1):51--63, Sept. 1962.
[21]
R. C. Nickerson. An engineering application of logic-structure tables. Commun. ACM, 4(11):516--520, Nov. 1961.
[22]
D. L. Parnas. A generalized control structure and its formal definition. Commun. ACM, 26(8):572--581, Aug. 1983.
[23]
D. L. Parnas. Tabular representation of relations. Technical report, McMaster University, 1992.
[24]
D. L. Parnas. Inspection of safety-critical software using program-function tables. In IFIP Congress (3), pages 270--277, 1994.
[25]
D. L. Parnas, G. J. K. Asmis, and J. Madey. Assessment of Safety-Critical software in nuclear power plants. Nuclear Safety, 32(2):189--198, June 1991.
[26]
D. L. Parnas and J. Madey. Functional documents for computer systems. Sci. Comput. Program., 25(1):41--61, Oct. 1995.
[27]
D. L. Parnas, J. Madey, and M. Iglewski. Precise documentation of well-structured programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 20(12):948--976, Dec. 1994.
[28]
N. Scaife, C. Sofronis, P. Caspi, S. Tripakis, and F. Maraninchi. Defining and translating a "safe" subset of simulink/stateflow into lustre. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Embedded Software, EMSOFT '04, pages 259--268, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM.
[29]
N. K. Singh. Using Event-B for Critical Device Software Systems. Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2013.
[30]
M. von Mohrenschildt. Algebraic composition of function tables. Formal Aspects of Computing, 12(1):41--51, 2000.
[31]
A. Wassyng and M. Lawford. Lessons learned from a successful implementation of formal methods in an industrial project. In FME, pages 133--153, 2003.
[32]
A. Wassyng, M. Lawford, and T. S. E. Maibaum. Software certification experience in the canadian nuclear industry: lessons for the future. In EMSOFT, pages 219--226, 2011.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Reachability Analysis and Simulation for Hybridised Event-B ModelsIntegrated Formal Methods10.1007/978-3-031-07727-2_7(109-128)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2022
  • (2020)Tabular‐expression‐based method for constructing metamorphic relationsSoftware: Practice and Experience10.1002/spe.281850:8(1345-1380)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2020
  • (2019)SL2SF: Refactoring Simulink to StateflowFundamental Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_15(264-281)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2019

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SoICT '15: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Information and Communication Technology
December 2015
372 pages
ISBN:9781450338431
DOI:10.1145/2833258
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

  • SOICT: School of Information and Communication Technology - HUST
  • NAFOSTED: The National Foundation for Science and Technology Development

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 December 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Stateflow
  2. Tabular Expressions
  3. completeness
  4. disjointness

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

SoICT 2015

Acceptance Rates

SoICT '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 49 of 106 submissions, 46%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 318 submissions, 46%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Reachability Analysis and Simulation for Hybridised Event-B ModelsIntegrated Formal Methods10.1007/978-3-031-07727-2_7(109-128)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2022
  • (2020)Tabular‐expression‐based method for constructing metamorphic relationsSoftware: Practice and Experience10.1002/spe.281850:8(1345-1380)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2020
  • (2019)SL2SF: Refactoring Simulink to StateflowFundamental Approaches to Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_15(264-281)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2019

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media